{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220180002","title":"AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-09-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.1005, 192.1015(a), 192.11(b), 192.465(a), 192.465(b), 192.481(a), 192.491(b), 192.619(a)(1), 192.707(a)(1), 192.707(b)(1), 192.707(b)(2), 192.721(b)(1), 192.721(b)(2), 192.723(b)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220180002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220180002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220180002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220180002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.1005,  192.1015(a),  192.11(b),  192.465(a),  192.465(b),  192.481(a),  192.491(b),  192.619(a)(1),  192.707(a)(1),  192.707(b)(1),  192.707(b)(2),  192.721(b)(1),  192.721(b)(2),  192.723(b)(2). The case was opened on 2018-09-05 and is reported as closed as of 2019-06-19. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220180002_Final Order_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180002/220180002_Final%20Order_06192019.pdf\n\n220180002_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180002/220180002_Final%20Order_06192019_text.pdf\n\n220180002_NOPV PCO_09052018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180002/220180002_NOPV%20PCO_09052018.pdf\n\n220180002_NOPV PCO_09052018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180002/220180002_NOPV%20PCO_09052018_text.pdf\n\n220180002_Operator Response to Notice_10042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220180002/220180002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10042018.pdf\n\n220180002_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf\n\nJune 19, 2019\nMr. Hugh Gallagher\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nAmeriGas Propane, LP\n460 North Gulph Road\nKing of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406\nRe: CPF No. 2-2018-0002\nDear Mr. Gallagher:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and finds that AmeriGas Propane, LP has completed the actions specified in the Notice\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. David Hedrick, Pipeline Safety Manager, AmeriGas Propane, LP\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nAmeriGas Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 2-2018-0002\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 13-17, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of AmeriGas Propane, LP’s (AmeriGas or\nRespondent), facilities in Flager and St. Johns Counties, Florida, and records in Saint Augustine\nand Holly Hill, Florida. AmeriGas, a subsidiary of UGI Corporation, is the nation's largest\npropane company, serving approximately 1.8 million customers locally in all 50 states from\napproximately 1,900 distribution locations.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 5, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that AmeriGas had violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a) and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violation. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nAmeriGas responded to the Notice by letter dated October 4, 2018 (Response). The company\ndid not admit the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken to complete the proposed compliance actions. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, AmeriGas did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\n1 AmeriGas website, available at https://investors.amerigas.com/about-amerigas/investor-overview/default.aspx\n(last accessed May 15, 2019).\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2018-0002\nPage 2\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic\npipelines.\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a\npressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure\ndetermined under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of\nthe following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment,\ndetermined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part. . .\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the\nsegment was tested after construction as follows . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a) by operating a segment of\nsteel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the maximum allowable operating pressure\n(MAOP). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to consider the design pressure\nof the weakest element of the segment (service regulators with a design pressure of 10 psig)\nwhen it operated its systems at 30 psig (Sanctuary of Palm Cost) and 33.3 psig (Belz Outlet Mall,\nCypress Lakes, and Heritage Landing).\nIn its Response, AmeriGas did not admit the allegation of violation, and offered no evidence to\ncontest the violation. Based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a) by operating a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that\nexceeds the MAOP.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 6 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.619(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.619(a) (Item 6), Respondent has reviewed\nand updated the MAOP determinations for pipeline segments downstream of pressure\nregulating and limiting stations for the Belz Outlet Mall, Cypress Lakes, Heritage\nLanding and the Sanctuary of Palm Coast systems. Respondent has also reviewed\nand made adjustments, as necessary, to pressure regulating and limiting station set-\npoints to ensure they are set to maintain system pressure in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.201(a)(2) for the systems noted above. Finally, AmeriGas provided a diagram\nof each regulating or limiting station, including the make, model and set point for\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2018-0002\nPage 3\neach pressure limiting or regulating device.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1-5 and 7-13, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.11(b) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to meet the\nrequirements of NFPA 58;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to test each\npipeline under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection\nmet the requirements of § 192.463;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to take prompt\nremedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by external corrosion control\nmonitoring;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each\nonshore pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for\nevidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.491(b) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a\nrecord of each corrosion control inspection required by Subpart I in sufficient\ndetail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a\ncorrosive condition does not exist;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a)(1) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to place and\nmaintain line markers as close as practical over each buried main and\ntransmission line at each crossing of a public road and railroad;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.707(b) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have line\nmarkers written legibly on a background of sharply contrasting color that included\nthe word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the words “Gas (or\nname of gas transported) Pipeline” all of which, except for markers in heavily\ndeveloped urban areas, must be in letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high with\n¼ inch (6.4 millimeters stroke), and the name of the operator and the telephone\nnumber (including area code) where the operator can be reached at all times;\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2018-0002\nPage 4\n49 C.F.R. § 192.721(b)(1) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to patrol\nmains in places or on structures where anticipated physical movement or external\nloading could cause failure or leakage in business districts at intervals not\nexceeding 4½ months, but at least four times each calendar year;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.721(b)(2) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to patrol\nmains in places or on structures where anticipated physical movement or external\nloading could cause failure or leakage outside business districts at intervals not\nexceeding 7½ months but at least twice year calendar year;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.723(b)(2) (Item 11) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct a\nleak survey with leak detector equipment outside business districts as frequently\nas needed, but at least once every 5 calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63\nmonths;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.1005 (Item 12) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to develop and\nimplement an integrity management program that includes a written integrity\nmanagement plan as specified in § 192.1007 no later than August 2, 2011; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.1015(a) (Item 13) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to develop and\nimplement an IM program that includes a written IM plan as specified in\n§ 192.1015(b), that reflects the relative simplicity of small liquefied petroleum\ngas systems.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 19, 2019\n___________________________________ _________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11148}